appeal of film over digital?

Coldkennels said:
...is everyone who makes dinner for themselves at night a chef?

...is everyone who drives to work a "driver"?

...is everyone who talks a "public speaker"?

There is a vast gulf between "does something out of necessity" and "does something out of personal desire or as a profession".

I've kicked many footballs in my life. I'd never dream of calling myself a footballer.
Click to expand...
It seems easy to draw the line to me and I agree.
 
Harry the K said:
If there is no valid answer, why ask the question?

In my social environment there are many, many cell phone shooters, mostly taking pictures for showing off in social media or to just remember something. Sometimes I also use my cell phone to document something.
Of all the cell phone shooters I know, there is certainly nobody who would call himself "photographer". And there is nobody who claims to have more photographic knowledge than I have. But I also have difficulties to call myself "photographer", because I´m no professional, just a hobbyist.

So: Why draw lines? They are so subjectively drawn that they are useless.
Click to expand...
I didn't say there were no valid answers. I said I didn't have one. Big difference! My point was that we need to question the assumptions that we may have absorbed unthinkingly. Maybe our answers will only be provisional and personal.
For that matter, the most significant philosophical questions that have perplexed humans since they became human are without answers. My feeling is that those are the most important questions we can ask, and keep asking.
 
It seems unarguable that someone who makes their living that way is a photographer. But for anyone else, more arguable. It can seem presumptuous. I take photos, but am I a photographer? I don’t know, I don’t like to presume.

Back to the OP: I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned the appeal of the whole film process. I love handling the little cassettes, the developing tank, the measuring cylinders and the smell of the chemicals. And then the magic of printing. It is invidious to make a comparison with electronic processing, but when digital was first threatening to dominate, I made the very deliberate decision to stick with the chemical process that I loved. Thankfully it has survived.

It’s also healthy to have a fresh clean sensor for every shot 😉.
 
Jonathan R said:
It seems unarguable that someone who makes their living that way is a photographer. But for anyone else, more arguable. It can seem presumptuous. I take photos, but am I a photographer? I don’t know, I don’t like to presume.
Click to expand...
No it's not, there is no magic fairy dust, mermaid riding a unicorn version of being a Photographer, it's quite simple, as I've said in a different thread, some have forgotten what photography is about and these twenty pages of mishmash prove it.
Leon C said:
Why would you, being a photographer isn't defined by whether you get paid or not as that's the only difference between Pro or Hobbyist.

All being a photographer means is you make pictures through photography, which is just painting with light, when the term was around originally there were no phones so these days it doesn't really matter if you use a shoebox with a hole in it or a iPhoneyandroidy....thing, it's still photography.
Click to expand...
 
Godfrey said:
Of course, given the lack of constraints when using a digital camera of any kind ... no cost for film or processing, and an almost infinite number of exposures possible based on storage capacity and battery ... and the ubiquitous presence of smartphone cameras in millions of peoples' pockets, it is absolutely no marvel whatever that 99% of all photographs extant now are digital captures.

G
Click to expand...

Agree. I have a favourite term for many of these images - digicrap.
 
Last edited:
Retro-Grouch said:
I didn't say there were no valid answers. I said I didn't have one. Big difference!
Click to expand...
Sorry, that´s just a rhetorical figure.
If there were valid answers, we would know them.
Retro-Grouch said:
For that matter, the most significant philosophical questions that have perplexed humans since they became human are without answers. My feeling is that those are the most important questions we can ask, and keep asking.
Click to expand...
That´s not quite correct: The question is unknown, due to the destruction of the Earth by Vogons. 42 is the answer.
 
Leon C said:
All being a photographer means is you make pictures through photography, which is just painting with light, when the term was around originally there were no phones so these days it doesn't really matter if you use a shoebox with a hole in it or a iPhoneyandroidy....thing, it's still photography.
Click to expand...
I find it, at least in our ambiance of photo nerds, too simple to reduce the word to the technical procedure of taking photographs. More important are the cultural, historical and psychological implications.
 
Last edited:
Leon C said:
No it's not, there is no magic fairy dust, mermaid riding a unicorn version of being a Photographer, it's quite simple, as I've said in a different thread
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I don’t agree with you at all. There is magic fairy dust. Some who use cameras have more than others, many have none at all. What you choose to call these groups, or yourself, is up to you. But there definitely is fairy dust, and I stick to my point about presumption.
 
No one should take this personally but there is more to being a photographer than using a camera. If that's not clear to you, maybe you just point your cameras at things and never really take pictures.

(Take this from a guy who occasionally points his camera. :rolleyes: )
 
Dogman said:
No one should take this personally but there is more to being a photographer than using a camera. If that's not clear to you, maybe you just point your cameras at things and never really take pictures.

(Take this from a guy who occasionally points his camera. :rolleyes: )
Click to expand...
That wasn't was being addressed or commented on though, people saying they aren't photographers because they aren't professional is silly or don't call themselves photgraphers because of some mystical belief is also silly and has been already said, one doesn't need to use a Camera to be a photographer, a phone will do.

Harry the K said:
I find it, at least in our ambiance of photo nerds, too simple to reduce the word to the technical procedure of taking photographs. More important are the cultural, historical and psycological implications.
Click to expand...
If that's what you think, fine, carry on, if you feel the need to label yourself as a nerd feel free but I'm certainly not, so....

Jonathan R said:
I’m afraid I don’t agree with you at all. There is magic fairy dust. Some who use cameras have more than others, many have none at all. What you choose to call these groups, or yourself, is up to you. But there definitely is fairy dust, and I stick to my point about presumption.
Click to expand...

Feel free but it's not me you're not ageeing with, it's some bloke from the 1800's as I missed the enrolment of Hogwarts Photography School.

That's the fun and trouble with these type of pointless threads, they go nowhere....Ultimately mean nothing and are just filled with personal misinterpretations of what others say to suit their own beliefs.
 
Jonathan R said:
I’m afraid I don’t agree with you at all. There is magic fairy dust. Some who use cameras have more than others, many have none at all. What you choose to call these groups, or yourself, is up to you. But there definitely is fairy dust, and I stick to my point about presumption.
Click to expand...
And the magic fairy dust is... Silver Nitrate!
 
Brick33308 said:
HI, I currently shoot with a M10 and a few really great Leica lenses, absolutely love this setup. But lately I've been getting the bug to shoot film.

I understand all the reasons people like film over digital in terms of the shooting experience, and indeed I got a sense of those reasons when in February I got my M10 and put my Sony A7RV on the shelf (except for performance and certain photo trip photography). Switching to manual rangefinder focus has slowed down my process and made me more contemplative about what/why I'm taking a particular picture. So all good in terms of understanding that such process will continue and perhaps be enhanced if I begin shooting film.

My inquiry today is what are the attributes about a film image that others like as compared to digital. Lately I've been processing my digital images with various film-like presets, two example are posted below (taken with my 35/1.4 steel rim reissue). Is there a look with film that can't be reproduced with digital processing?

Look forward to your responses!


Click to expand...
Okay, since this has devolved into a circular argument, I decided to go back to the beginning to try and give my answer to the original post.

I don't like one medium over the other, except when the technical abilities of one or the other call for using that medium at that time. I like them both and use both with the mindset that I am after the best image I can get from the situation. Having used film only for many decades one would think I'd be biased towards that way more than digital, but oh contraire, mon ami.

It's the same arguments that have been dredged up over the years over what film format is the best, whether or not b&w is better than color, which camera/lens is the best. It's no different than declaring that watercolor painting is far superior to acrylics, or that stone is better than wood for sculpting. If you are satisfied with the finished image portraying what your vision was when you decided to make/capture it, then there is no reason to doubt that the way you produced that image is somehow deficient. In the end, it is all in the eyes of the beholder whether it holds up to scrutiny or not. All the great artists over the centuries have had their fair share of detractors. Some worked in only one medium, while others used multiple methods of creation to convey their imagery to the public. And yet, they still had to suffer the slings and arrows of criticism.

I say it doesn't matter how you got to where you did in your journey to present your vision to the masses, unless I want to find out how you did it so I can emulate it.

PF
 
farlymac said:
Okay, since this has devolved into a circular argument, I decided to go back to the beginning to try and give my answer to the original post.

I don't like one medium over the other, except when the technical abilities of one or the other call for using that medium at that time. I like them both and use both with the mindset that I am after the best image I can get from the situation. Having used film only for many decades one would think I'd be biased towards that way more than digital, but oh contraire, mon ami.

It's the same arguments that have been dredged up over the years over what film format is the best, whether or not b&w is better than color, which camera/lens is the best. It's no different than declaring that watercolor painting is far superior to acrylics, or that stone is better than wood for sculpting. If you are satisfied with the finished image portraying what your vision was when you decided to make/capture it, then there is no reason to doubt that the way you produced that image is somehow deficient. In the end, it is all in the eyes of the beholder whether it holds up to scrutiny or not. All the great artists over the centuries have had their fair share of detractors. Some worked in only one medium, while others used multiple methods of creation to convey their imagery to the public. And yet, they still had to suffer the slings and arrows of criticism.

I say it doesn't matter how you got to where you did in your journey to present your vision to the masses, unless I want to find out how you did it so I can emulate it.

PF
Click to expand...
You're being far too reasonable! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom